soundoff(11 Responses)

Kannan

I thought it was awemose. I'm not sure why so many people complained that O'Reilly took too much away in the edits. Some good stuff hit the editing room floor, for sure, but when you have to cut three 6 minute segments from this 40-some-odd minute gem, you're going to lose some good pieces.By the way, Stewart does the Jersey joke all the time on TDS, so I wasn't really impressed. Still a good metaphor for Fox News, though. The real golden-moment for me was at 24:08. Genius.

He's not dead YET?? :)Brian, your concept of "partisan" is lhuagable. If anything, CNN would be the LEAST "partisan" of all the cable news networks.Fox has been on the decline and I somehow don't see Snow at MSNBC, so what's the most logical alternative?Do YOU "partisans" fear you might, one day, need to come out of the regressive media ghetto you have created for yourselves, and actually place yourselves into an environment where you'd be expected to function with some level of journalistic integrity?

Any time people comment about Chris Wallace's Sunday morning show on BROADCAST TV, they almost immediately EQUATE it with the Fox CABLE News Channel. Reruns oif Fox News Sunday do in fact run on FNC, but it is primarily a Sunday-morning talking-heads show for Fox's broadcasting affiliates. To give it a boost, many stations run it at 9:00 am (at least here in Boston that's the case) while "Meet the Press", "Face the Nation" and ABC's "This Week" air in the 10:00 to 11:30 am window.

I remember a time last year when Stewart had sort of a mini-fued going with Keith Olbermann (a favorite broadcaster of yours to talk about) and others at MSBC where they complained Stewart was drawing a "false equivalency" between MSNBC and Fox News. In the Fox interview, Stuart seemed to be complaining that Wallace was drawing the same false equivalency between the Daily Show and politcal/news shows on Fox News. In my mind, he made points that broadcasters from MSNBC could (and probably should) have made; that "calling out" republicans for bad policy, bad behavior, etc. doesn't automatically make MSNBC the evil arch nemesis of Fox - or "just as bad" because they rail against politicians who claim there are "death panels" where there aren't any - that our president is from Kenya - and on and on... I think Stewart was expressing what it was like to have the shoe on the other foot. And to me, that's a more interesting story than what we've been talking about relative to this story.

David Zurawik got really worked up there, so much so that he utterly missed the point. Jon Stewart wasn't saying "Fox News is worse than us because they make more mistakes." (Naturally, any 24 hours news network is going to make more mistakes than a comedy show that airs two hours a week.) What Stewart did was use the same source that had labeled his "misinformed" comment false to restate his original point by presenting numerous examples, from that same source, of Fox News deliberately misinforming viewers, always to one particular side of the debate.

I understand that the mainstream media dislikes Stewart. He makes his living satirizing the mainstream media (which, yes, includes Fox), so naturally you guys are defensive and will take any chance to retaliate against him (recall the absurd media backlash when he dared to utter the word "dude" to President Obama?). When he goes after Fox for their obvious bias, you act tribally, circling the wagons to defend your own comrades even when the accusations are clearly true, because you remember that just last week he was making fun of CNN. We need satirists and serious critics both, and when you waste energy attacking Stewart, you're just letting guys like Wallace off the hook.

Mister Zurawik was correct to note on his blog just a few weeks ago when Chris Wallace asked Sarah Palin about Paul Revere and accepted her absurd responses with a rhetorical genuflection. He also made apperances on other Fox programs to promote the interview and explicitly stated that he thinks Palin is very intelligent. How to explain that other than Wallace getting his marching orders to make her look good? It may just be coordinated support for a fellow member of the corporate network, or it may be overt political bias, but either way it is clearly calculated and not good news.

Oh, and Mister Wallace, I'm sure you aren't reading this, but as a former Fox News Sunday viewer, I was indeed disappointed with the direction your show turned in the wake of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

again, Kurtz and his media pundits miss the point. Stewart walked onto Chris Wallace's set and got Wallace to declare and defend that when Fox news advertises that they are fair and balanced, a mantra of journalistic integrity, they don't mean they are fair and balanced in each story, or even in their story choices, they mean to deliberately portray right leaning stories in a right leaning manner with enough weight to counter balance what Fox PERCIEVES to be the left-leaning weight of ALL other media. That is the beginning, the middle and the end of this story. Fox misleads the public with false claims that are fair and balanced when , in fact, they percieve themselves as a counterveiling power to left wing extremism.. the crime here is twofold; first, that so much of the population is duped by this propoganda, but more importantly second, that there is not enough journalistic integrity in the rest of media to challenge Fox's claim or it's content in sufficient quantity to stem the tide toward a deliberately disinformed electorate. Perhaps Stewart's popularity is by default due to a dazed and confused media reponsible for the 'lame' in LSM, as Kurtz and his panelists were on this story.

you missed what jon stewart was doing when he corrected his mistake about fox news and the misinformed viewers. he was showing that all responsible people make corrections and apoligize but fox news never makes a correction when the are wrong because they are never wrong or do not care if they are wrong.

Media critics like to juxtapose Fox News as the right wing propaganda machine and MSNBC, particularly Rachel Maddow, as the left wing counterpart. Now, Jon Stewart, after his exchange with Chris Wallace, listed an impressive list of egregious claims by the Fox Network that violated exemplified one logic fallacy after another, including character assassination and name-calling. I would agree that Rachel Maddow has a leftist bias, but can you make a comparable list of logical fallacies and outrageous factual claims? I think there is a clear difference in intellectual integrity that every decent journalist should recognize, but pundits and media critics feel uncomfortable talking about. No wonder the main stream media is held in such contempt.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About "Reliable Sources"

Now more than ever, the press is a part of every story it covers. And CNN's "Reliable Sources" is one of television's only regular programs to examine how journalists do their jobs and how the media affect the stories they cover.

Follow us on:

About the host

Brian Stelter is the host of "Reliable Sources" and the senior media correspondent for CNN Worldwide. Before he joined CNN in November 2013, Stelter was a media reporter for The New York Times. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller "Top of the Morning."